Untangling the mess

Newsweek lists Trump's financial network as a 'national security nightmare'.

Uh oh... what are they not telling us?

Josh Marshall at TPM: (my bold)

McCain advisor Charlie Black on questions about Sarah Palin's foreign policy competence. "She's going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years, and most doctors think that he'll be around at least that long."

I get bravado. But is that a reassuring way to put it?

Um... MOST doctors? What about the other ones? What are they saying? Just how long does the man have to live?

WTF?

Bullying and intimidation?

What are you going to do to bad ol' Putin and Medvedev, Georgie? Your manly mighty military is bogged down in your vanity wars, thanks to your desire for a crusade to shock and awe. Besides, you've perfected your own bullying and intimidation over these horrible eight years not only to your own citizens but the world, so you should talk.

Actually that's all you've got, isn't it?:

Ms. Rice warned of “consequences” for Russia over its military offensive in Georgia. Earlier, in Washington, President Bush condemned as unacceptable what he called Russia’s “bullying and intimidation.” He also said Friday that Russia must withdraw its troops from all of Georgian territory and said the United States would stand with Georgia in the conflict.

“Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected,” he said.

However, neither Ms. Rice’s remarks nor those by Mr. Bush contained any hint of any further American response should Russia not pull back its troops.

And so much for looking into Putin's eyes to see his soul:

Mr. Gates’s remarks, while critical of Mr. Putin, also included an implicit rebuke of any effort to base American policy solely on a perceived friendship within the Kremlin. At the Pentagon, Mr. Gates was asked whether he trusted Mr. Putin anymore, and he paused before responding.

“ ‘Anymore’ is an interesting add,” he said. “I have never believed that one should make national security policy on the basis of trust. I think you make national security policy based on interests and on realities.”

The gameplan of Rudy Giuliani

Is to declare the Democrats are too afraid of terrorists to stand up to them.

I am tough on terror! I am! I am! I am!



Greg Sargent of TPM Cafe: (my bold)

The Rudy game plan here, we think, is to refight the war with liberalism he fought over crime in New York City in the 1990s.

Back then Rudy argued that poverty wasn't the root cause of crime, casting his foes as pansies who cared about the welfare of criminals and thugs and didn't have what it takes to deal with them. Now he's merely parroting the same points that worked for him last time, replacing the word "crime" with the word "terrorism." Indeed, he actually used the word crime in the above excerpt.

Rudy's broadside today was the same stuff: He knows what it takes to deal with them and understands that the only thing they understand is a kick in the teeth. Dems are wussies who don't get this.

This is clearly Rudy's emerging strategy. Despite having exactly zero national security experience, he's audaciously positioning himself as the most trustworthy and credible voice on terror and what to do about it. And incidentally, the political media is already signaling that it may let him get away with this monumental ruse. The media appears willing to cede Rudy an aura of national security experience based on nothing more than the fact that he held a bunch of press conferences in the aftermath of 9/11.

Rudy's argument may be absurd and simplistic and reveal that he has, well, no idea what the heck he's talking about. But it's an argument all the same. We'll be hearing a lot of it. And if Dems don't rebut it, no one will.

Well, if all it takes to be tough on terrorists is to hold press conferences, Bush must really be doing well....

Right?

The more things change

The more they stay the same. (Quote found at the Next Hurrah.)

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. May 1974 (my bold)

[The President's] all-purpose incantation of national security as an inherent and absolute Presidential right, whatever the surrounding circumstances, a right to be exercised in secret at Presidential pleasure without accountability to Congress and the people, surely represents an extraordinary violation of public trust. Some of his own people have begun to understand this now, even though [the President] himself thus far has shown not the slightest evidence of comprehension, repentance, or even passing regret. "The key," [a penitent aide] recently said, "is the effect that the term 'national security' had on my judgment. The very words served to block critical analysis. It seemed at least presumptuous if not unpatriotic to inquire into just what the significance of 'national security' was." If [the President] is not impeached, it will be a message from Congress to future Presidents that they can define national security as they wish, share their definition with no one, and do whatever they claim national security requires. It will be difficult for future Congresses to object when future Presidents act upon the powerful precedent [the President] will thus have established.

Who says there isn't a reset button. We're living Watergate all over again.....